ID Violates the Scientific ConsensusScientific consensus is highly problematic because it has been notoriously unreliable. For example in 1960 geosynclinal theory was the consensus explanation for mountain formation. It was "one of the great unifying principals of geology" according to authors of 'Geological Evolution of North America.' Geosynclinal theory was utterly abandoned after ten years of declaration and replaced with plate tectonics.
Even in a recent conversation it was get_education who poignantly said: "Actually, all scientific theories are "dubious" in the sense that further data might contradict the current theories, and thus we would have to come to different conclusions."
To which Dr. Van der Breggen complemented it with: "I think that we can agree that we should let a scientific investigation of the evidence of the world arbitrate our disagreement and that we should let the investigation do so unfettered by either an atheistic or theistic philosophy which might unfairly force our conclusions one way or the other."
Darwininism, today, is touted so widely as fact. We need to understand though that Darwin's theory at the start of the twentieth century was rejected by most all biologists. In the 1930's Darwinism revived when a handful of scientists merged Darwin's theory with Mendelian genetics, now known as Neo-Darwinism.
We can all agree that Darwinism remains the scientific consensus, but that consensus is shrinking. Dissent from Darwinism continues to grow in the scientific population. More would sign the list if their livelihood and reasearch would not be threatened by challenging Darwinism.
Michael Crichton, Medical Doctor, said it best: "I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. "
Interesting perspective, but I'm not quite convinced that consensus is at odds with science. Consensus helps to eliminate bias.
ReplyDeleteBut if your argument is that we should let the facts speak for themselves, biological evolution is a clear winner over creationism.
"But if your argument is that we should let the facts speak for themselves, biological evolution is a clear winner over creationism."
ReplyDeleteKaitlyn's point and Crichton's point are both spot on from my perspective. We do not determine scientific facts from "consensus." Consensus is merely a symptom of a compelling argument. The majority of scientists could be wrong about anything. But when you have a theory so well supported by multiple lines of evidence, the person trying to demonstrate that it is incorrect carries a heavy burden.
I do not think any scientist would dismiss ID/creationism because it is against the "consensus." They dismiss it because it does not comport with the evidence which is observable. ID/creationism makes no testable predictions unlike evolution. ID/creationism has lost the evidentiary battle so far, but anybody is welcome to continue to try to find evidence. Dan, feel free to come forward with evidence.
Well, here's a little something: John Lynch has been keeping track of ID research for the past three years. Guess what he found?
ReplyDeleteCheck out his links and you'll see...
Thanks, Reynold. Good stuff.
ReplyDeleteBart,
ReplyDeleteID/creationism makes no testable predictions unlike evolution...Dan, feel free to come forward with evidence.
How about, Evolution itself renders Intelligent Design falsifiable.
Dan,
ReplyDeletejust curious, what theory of truth do you hold to. Since you bring up consensus.
FOR EXAMPLE:
Correspondence Theory
Coherence Theory
Pragmatic Theory
Consensus Theory
When you say ID is true, what do you mean by that.
Andrew,
ReplyDeletejust curious, what theory of truth do you hold to. Since you bring up consensus.
I have to applaud your question as to the theory of truth, mainly because at first I felt intimidated by that question and consider it a challenge to clarify. Is there another choice called Biblical theory of truth? :)
Properly interpreted, the Bible indeed implicitly and explicitly teaches a particular theory of truth.
When you say ID is true, what do you mean by that.
What I claim is that Intelligent Design is falsifiable. I would be as bold to claim that Creationism is indeed the truth. Why? Because the Bible tells me so.
Brilliant post worthy point made is that the battle under way in America is not a battle between religion and science. It is a battle between religious and secular fundamentalists.
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that consensus is not necessarily scientific, and that science is not a democracy, but rather should go wherever the evidence leads. However, as others have noted, consensus can be a symptom of convincing and compelling evidence.
I wonder why, if science is not just about consensus, when you first wrote this thread you started with increasing consensus against the theory? The consensus, by the way, is not shrinking but in your imagination. Nobody;s job depends on evolution being true Dan. If someone found evidence that evolution were false, we could live with that and continue investigation into the new paradigm. I do not see how that would leave me jobless, even if my work was about evolution alone. I would just switch to find more data to either further accept the new paradigm, or reject it. Which is what science is about in the end.
Yeah, I will go wherever the evidence leads. Even if it leads to deities. But so far it does not. I emphasize those words by Hendrik that you included here:
and that we should let the investigation do so unfettered by either an atheistic or theistic philosophy which might unfairly force our conclusions one way or the other
I agree wholeheartedly. Do you? I doubt it.
G.E.
Oh a couple corrections to your post:
ReplyDelete1. I did not "said poignantly" anything. I am proud of the scientific method. I enjoy it the way it is. I said it proudly.
2. Hendrik did not "compliment" the comment, he "complemented" it.
G.E.
The article by Hedges is of course thoughtful and well written, but make no mistake, he abhors Christian Fundamentalism.
ReplyDelete"THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT AND THE RISE OF AMERICAN FASCISM
By -- CHRIS HEDGES
15 Nov 2004
Dr. James Luther Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, told us that when we were his age, he was then close to 80, we would all be fighting the "Christian fascists."
The warning, given to me 25 years ago, came at the moment Pat Robertson and other radio and televangelists began speaking about a new political religion that would direct its efforts at taking control of all institutions, including mainstream denominations and the government. Its stated goal was to use the United States to create a global, Christian empire. It was hard, at the time, to take such fantastic rhetoric seriously, especially given the buffoonish quality of those who expounded it. But Adams warned us against the blindness caused by intellectual snobbery. The Nazis, he said, were not going to return with swastikas and brown shirts. Their ideological inheritors had found a mask for fascism in the pages of the Bible."
This is what the "secularists" are speaking out against.
How about, Evolution itself renders Intelligent Design falsifiable.
ReplyDeleteYour link doesn't work.
Are you arguing that if the theory of evolution evolution was proven false that ID wins by default? I don't see why that is necessarily the case. You still are left in the same position - needing to prove that all of the life that we see was designed. I don't know how you can do that without first proving the existence of the designer. Some ID proponents (at least publicly) assert that they do not need to identify the nature of the designer, which really is hogwash. Without knowing who/what the designer is, how in the world are we to say that something was designed as opposed to just appearing to be designed?
To get back to my original point - even if you were somehow able to show that the TOE was false, ID/Creationism does not win by default.
Froggie,
ReplyDeletehe [Hedges] abhors Christian Fundamentalism.
Fair enough Froggie with one exception.
I think we can both agree that Hedges is against Fundamentalism in general as well as the cult of science which is rampant throughout people with the belief of atheism.
GE,
I appreciate the humbling grammar nazi knuckle raping, me'z been bad boy.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI always appreciate being corrected when I am wrong. I detest to find out by myself after too many times of incurring on the same mistake.
Anyway, no side intention behind the corrected use of words.
G.E.
The Christian fascists would have their cultural artifact, the Bible, taught as science in the public schools.
ReplyDeleteThey would discriminate against groups of people no like them.
They would legislate their draconian moralities.
Liberty and justice FOR ALL would be dead.
But no matter because the influence of the fundies is diminishing at an accelerated rate.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"I think we can both agree that Hedges is against Fundamentalism in general as well as the cult of science which is rampant throughout people with the belief of atheism." Good link.
I consider Hedges a moderate Christian, ususally, but sometimes a bit radical in his own right.
He obviously does not believe in angels and miracles:
"Science is morally neutral. It serves the good and the bad. I mean, industrial killing is a product of technological advance, just as is penicillin and modern medicine. So I think that I find the faith that these people (new atheists) place in science and reason as a route toward human salvation to be as delusional as the faith the Christian right places in miracles and angels."
I do not see this alleged Cult of Science as he apparently does.
He states science is morally neutrl. I can't think of any other way that could be.
GE,
ReplyDeleteI always appreciate being corrected when I am wrong.
Only a friend would let me know I have spinach between my teeth, enemies would relish in the fact that I would go through the day looking like that. So in that one act when you corrected my obvious blunder, I consider you a friend looking out for my best interest. Thank you.
Froggie,
Good link
Was that a compliment? We can be civil? Here I thought you and your friends over at ray-tractors threatened to call CPS on me.
Welcome to the friendly affray. Or is that an oxymoron?
This world must be coming to an end when Christians and Atheists can get along.
He states science is morally neutral. I can't think of any other way that could be.
I agree so why disallow any "particular" theory? Just because the theory has the word God in it, it's considered religion instead of a theory. Why cannot a Creator be included into a theory or preferably (by me) a paradigm? Why do Atheists put evolution in an iconic and untouchable status?
Scientists "propagate Darwinism as fact to every school in the country when the doctrine goes way beyond the evidence.
Why can't science return to it's Metaphysics origins?
From Wiki: "The original situation of metaphysics being integral with (Aristotelian) physics and science, has, in the West, become reversed so that scientists generally consider metaphysics antithetical to the empirical sciences."
Man just "decided" to remove God but that is not how science began. We welcome science since it seeks to find truth and by that we mean the entire truth not the "binders on" naturalism only truth.
Dan wrote...
ReplyDelete"Why do Atheists put evolution in an iconic and untouchable status?
Scientists "propagate Darwinism as fact to every school in the country when the doctrine goes way beyond the evidence."
Dan, let me explain this to you in a way you might understand.
If there was a concerted effort by Wiccans to replace the periodic table of elements with alchemy in the classrooms, I bet you atheists, free-thinkers, rationalists, and scientists would get pretty worked up about the fact that they want to replace science with magic.
Atheists really don't care about evolution beyond the fact that it's well supported scientific theory. It's only when creationists try to tell us we should abandon science for magic do atheists and even many moderate theists start talking about evolution.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteHa-ha, the biblical theory of tuth – I actually thought you’d say that. And by ha-ha I don’t mean to be insulting, it’s funny.
A biblical theory of truth is perhaps an authoritarian theory of truth – in other words, it’s true because the bible says so.
On the other hand, if you believe God to be true in the sense that he exists independently of human need and intentions, and/or that the statement, “God is good” is a statement that directly represents God’s character, then it’s likely you believe in the correspondence theory of truth.
"Why cannot a Creator be included into a theory."
ReplyDeleteSure, just give your scientific evidence that said creator exists and preferably give a falsifiable description of the mechanisms used by this creator...
Still waiting...
For example,
ReplyDeleteSye's TAG argument relied on peoples natural tendency (due to Platonic influences) towards philosophical realism, which sees truth as a correspondence to reality.
So if you tend to agree with Sye's requirement for epistemit certainty, then you're a realist.
We can all agree that Darwinism remains the scientific consensus, but that consensus is shrinking.
ReplyDeletePure bullshit. You're a lying pig.
Name one biologist who has contributed something important to biology who doesn't love biological evolution. You can't because there isn't any competent biologist in the world who denies the facts of evolution.
You don't help your hopeless cause by being dishonest. Of course, if somebody is stupid enough to prefer magic instead of science, he would have to be dishonest to defend his childish nonsense.
From the website you linked to "Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names."
ReplyDeleteName one discovery the Discovery Institute has made.
Just one discovery.
You can't do that because those retards have never discovered anything. The Discovery Institute is a Christian creationist organization that puts out daily press releases lying about the hard work of real scientists. Their main goal is to destroy America's science education. Their only income comes from donations from cowardly Christians who would become mentally disturbed if they thought they were cousins of chimps.
I have nothing but contempt for the professional liars of the Discovery Institute and it's obvious you're a liar too.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteDon't you find it hilariously ironic that the one paltry bit of evidence you provide for avoiding consensus science, in the form of 'dissent from Darwin', is itself a type of consensus movement? It's a bare bones petition that seeks to gain influence based on the gravity of the names attached to it, rather than via examining the evidence for doubting Darwinism. And that is exactly the kind of thing you are decrying!
Calling science for its past mistakes still doesn't prove squat about God, that he exists or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteAnd if scientific consensus is meaningless throw away your childrens antibiotics and refuse your family memebers blood tranfusions and organ donations.
Really.
These arguments are scraping new lows.
And if scientific consensus is meaningless throw away your childrens antibiotics and refuse your family memebers blood tranfusions and organ donations.
ReplyDeleteUh, don't say that too loud, Sarah: I don't know about Dan, but lots of Christians do exactly that.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"I agree so why disallow any "particular" theory? Just because the theory has the word God in it, it's considered religion instead of a theory. Why cannot a Creator be included into a theory or preferably (by me) a paradigm? Why do Atheists put evolution in an iconic and untouchable status?"
A Scientific Theory is based on testable and falsifiable facts.
You cannot have a theory based on a premise that is not falsifiable or testable.
Carry on.
CwC and Zilch,
ReplyDeletethrow away your childrens antibiotics We have done that, does it matter if it was because they were expired?
refuse your family members blood transfusions Not yet, and doubt we would.
and organ donations No, we are organ donors, why wouldn't we be? We don't need that old carcass since we will be given a new one anyway.
Does that dispel any myths about Christians?
Ask me about vaccines though. That is something entirely different these days.
Froggie,
You cannot have a theory based on a premise that is not falsifiable or testable.
I have answered that already.
Dan, I realized that you probably didn't reject the aforementioned things. Hence my vaguely sardonic point.
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to dispel anything about Christians to me, I spent my formative years surrounded by them.
As for vaccinations. Tell me who you get your information from, and why you choose to believe the information you receive.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteWhy are you ignoring me buddy? I raised a valid point.
CwC,
ReplyDeleteAs for vaccinations. Tell me who you get your information from, and why you choose to believe the information you receive.
From God and personal experience. One out of four of my children was intensely vaccinated. My first (girl) not so much (we were moving around a great deal and missed some) I was trusting of the doctors for my first boy and he was heavily vaccinated with all available vaccines (a requirement for school). We noticed a change soon on and now he ticks and such and may have a mild form of Autism. My other two boys are perfectly healthy and "issue" and Doctor free. I homeschool all of them with zero problems. Since then, I have found a plethora of like minded people and articles claiming similar things although my study on it is very young. Is this the right thing to do in other minds? I don't care. When it comes to my kids, when I put my trust in anything man does (Lab Coatathority), I get burned. It sure is helping my bias towards mankind, that is for sure. I feel like the battered wife that flinches every time she observes fast movement. I am very aware these days of the evils of mankind. My basic rule these days is if the school system endorses/enforces it then it's probably bad for kids. If this states Supreme Court loves it then it probably is a bad thing since it can be verified it opposes the Bible. These are not perfect formulas but a good guideline and a start. I am just ranting and venting at this point, and should not be taken as the gospel.
Frodo the Prophet,
Don't you find it hilariously ironic that the one paltry bit of evidence you provide for avoiding consensus science, in the form of 'dissent from Darwin', is itself a type of consensus movement?
Yes, but that was the point being made. In that, not even the consensus is not the consensus or in agreement, evidenced by that list.
I will give you a cookie for the observation though. Good boy!
Nearly 100% of all autistic children have been vaccinated.
ReplyDeleteCoincidence? I don't think so!
On a side note, Dan, you really should vaccinate your children. You're putting them at greater risk for deadly infections, but I doubt anything I have to say matters, and I don't want to tell you how to raise your children.
I don't want to tell you how to raise your children.
ReplyDeleteThis is a fantastic point. I do want to tell people how to raise their children. People who smoke in the house with their kids, people who refuse to administer insulin shots to Type-I diabetics, people who teach their children that dark-skinned persons are inferior to light-skinned persons, people who beat their children, etc.
The truth is that we all seek to tell others how their children should be raised, but we tend to stop at some fuzzy line and decide that some point is just too far -- that we can tell parents one thing, but not another. That we can force them to raise children in this way, but not that...
--
Stan
I think there's a line between dictating and giving advice. I can tell Dan only has good intentions to his children which is why I am not about to call the authorities for child endangerment. However, my advice would be to vaccinate his children.
ReplyDeletePerhaps he could lessen some of his worries if he vaccinated them slowly with one vaccination at a time.
Dan is trying to reduce the risk of autism by denying his children vaccines, but at the same time, he's increasing their risk for deadly diseases like measles.
I applaud Dan for questioning the status quo, but millions of children worldwide are vaccinated without showing any symptoms of autism. The medical community has also found little to no objective support for the idea that vaccines cause autism.
I should note that symptoms of autism begin at the same age as when we vaccinate our children. So while the skepticism is not completely unwarranted, I will remind everyone that correlation does not equal causation.
I should also note that diseases like measles have been scientifically linked to brain damage. So not vaccinating is certainly more risky in terms of leading to brain injury than vaccination.
ReplyDeleteKaitlyn and Stan,
ReplyDeleteStan can you prove without doubt that vaccines are not harmful for children?
Stan said: I do want to tell people how to raise their children.
By trying to force kids to do harmful things is criminal. Good job.
Why do they have a vaccine court then?
Even worse the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
Someone is in denial but I don't believe it's me.
I will wait for this court case results before I go running out to trust my kids with anyone. I suggest everyone else to do the same.
It is a hot button issue for me. For now I choose to trust God and I doubt that will ever change.
Something about vaccines.
ReplyDeleteLook especially at this link that the guy gives. It's probably the most important one of all. This one is maybe the second most.
"prove without doubt that vaccines are not harmful to children"? Dan, by that standard, even playing baseball is not "without doubt"! I urge you to do some reading of the links that Phil provides in his blog entry above, and to go to the scienceblogs site and do some more reading. You are taking a far bigger risk with your kids by not vaccinating them as opposed to vaccinating them.
Or to put it another way, can you prove "without doubt" that not vaccinating your kids will do them no harm?
Look at the preponderance of evidence.
Check out how smallpox was wiped out...it was through vaccines, not through prayer, no offense.
Even in your link about a "vaccine court" it's not as strong a case against vaccines as you think:
The VICP was adopted in response to a scare over the pertussis portion of the DPT vaccine.[1] These claims were later generally discredited, but some U.S. lawsuits against vaccine makers won substantial awards; most makers ceased production, and the last remaining major manufacturer threatened to do so.
Bottom line, from all the available research and family studies, vaccines don't cause autism. If that is truly what you child has, he'd have gotten it anyway, even without any vaccine.
I can't get that last link of your, to some court case to work...does it have anything to do with the Poling case? If so...again, check out the links the author gives.
The first comment here is interesting.
Just a quick note: that "second" most important link is not one given by Phil, but rather is another link that I had found.
ReplyDeleteReynold,
ReplyDeleteThanks for you concern and links.
Immagine that, the "Vaccine Education Center" says vaccines are perfectly fine. Even with all these objections. Who would of thunk?
I suppose next you will tell me that keeping my children safe in the basement is unhealthy. :)
I never said I wouldn't vaccinate my children but I might wait until I know for sure they are healthy and older and then do it. Like science, I am eliminating the variables.
If my child does have autism it will probably be the mildest case in history since thy symptoms are very subtle. I do feel stuck and it sucks that they don't do more tests before making our kids the ginnie pigs.
Besides if the atheist's spokesman Bill Maher is against vaccines, it must be bad...right?
When has anyone ever said that Bill Maher was infallible? Not all atheists even liked his "religulous" movie since it used too many of the same tactics that the "Expelled" people did apparently.
ReplyDeleteEven on the scienceblogs links I gave if you type in his name, you'll get suff like this.
Here's another blog post about vaccines.
ReplyDeleteNote the links.
I meant to say, "note this link" that I gave.
ReplyDeleteReynold,
ReplyDeleteHere's another blog post about vaccines.
I have read that "link" before but did you find it peculiar even vaccinated kids get that peculiar disease. I would fully agree with you if I had my kids in the disease infested third world dominate public school system here in California, but that isn't the case. I keep my kids away from the public and we do not go abroad. We keep them sheltered and secure. If God wants a kid to catch something, even vaccines will not help.